Dismissed

Rajeev Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt of Home Lko and Another

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2025CRLA/1739/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Appeal No. 1739 of 2024, the Allahabad High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the rejection of a bail application under theSC/ST Act andIPC. The court held the appeal was misconceived given the victim's support of the prosecution story.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal dismissed; trial court directed to conclude trial expeditiously.

Rajeev Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1261

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1739 of 2024 Appellant :- Rajeev Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt Of Home Lko And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Upendra Kumar Singh,Dinesh Kumar,Shashin Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Rajvanshi,Hemlata Verma

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present appeal has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 02.04.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST, (P.A.) Act, Ambedkarnagar in Bail Application No.486 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No.44/2024 under Sections 313, 323, 328, 366, 370, 376, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Jalalpur, District- Ambedkarnagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that only on the basis of concocted facts, FIR of case in question was lodged as the victim joined the company of appellant on her own, thereafter, she entered into marriage with the co-accused, namely, Surya Bhan. He further submitted that statement of victim was also recorded on the behest of her family members as well as the police. He further submitted that the co-accused, namely, Surya Bhan has already been granted bail and trial of case in question is not going on. He further submitted that appellant does not have any criminal antecedent and he is in jail since 16.02.2024. But all these facts were not considered by the trial court while rejecting the bail application of appellant. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant may be enlarged on bail.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer of appellant and submitted that victim is a deaf and dumb lady and she was physically abused by the appellant, thereafter, she was sold to co-accused, namely, Surya Bhan who, later on, entered into marriage with the victim and appellant was one of the witness in marriage of

¶9

victim and Surya Bhan. It is also informed by the learned counsel for the complainant that appellant had also solemnized marriage with the victim by way of a notarial agreement but all these facts were not brought into the knowledge of this Court, therefore, the present appeal is liable to be rejected.

¶10

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of appeal, statement of victim recorded by the Investigating Officer as well as other relevant documents; it is evident that victim is a deaf and dumb lady and she has supported the prosecution story before the Magistrate. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the present appeal is misconceived and is liable to be rejected.

¶11

Accordingly, the present appeal is hereby dismissed.

¶12

Trial court is directed to conclude trial of the case in question expeditiously, without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶13

Office is directed to communicate this order to the trial court for necessary compliance, forthwith.

¶14

Order Date :- 8.1.2025 V. Sinha

¶15

Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajeev Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt of Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt of Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Lalita Devi vs Dir. of Enforcement Lko.

Sarvan and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home. Lko and Another

Pawan Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Sunil Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mohd. Anwar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.